https://youtu.be/g4qa9dEzRHY

kimber_blk_logo_small

You may recall that Pat Toomey as the Republican Senator behind the Manchin-Toomey background check bill. The bi-partisan dynamic duo introduced the bill — mandating federal background checks for all firearms sales and transfers — in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook spree killing. It didn’t make it into law. But the bill pleased President Obama no end; his praise for the Pennsylvania pol’s “courage” was effusive. That was then, this is now.

To appeal to Democratic and independent voters, Toomey’s reelection campaign used the President’s own words in an ad promoting their man. For some strange reason, the resulting video (above) didn’t find favor at the White House. Here’s the President protest proclamation.

Pat Toomey may have done the right thing on one vote, but courage is telling Pennsylvania voters where you stand on the tough issues, not just the easy ones like background checks. Pat Toomey won’t tell Pennsylvania voters where he stands on Donald Trump, trying instead to have it both ways by telling different people what he thinks they want to hear. That’s not courage. Voting to shut down the government and against bills to close the terrorist gun loophole isn’t courage. And playing politics with the Supreme Court isn’t courage. I support Katie McGinty for Senate because she will always do the right thing for Pennsylvania families.

While the President’s un-endorsement is hardly a surprise, it proves a simple point: gun control is about more than gun control. It’s the thin end of the wedge of statist ambitions. Politicians or any stripe drink the “gun safety” Kool-Aid at their own peril. And ours.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

38 COMMENTS

  2. He should say thanks Obama for the endorsement.

    seriously though I have Kirk to vote for. Libertarian for Senate I guess this year and I may get to vote for some one else next time.

    • I voted weeks ago. I saw no choice for senator-so I voted none of the above. Kirk will win or likely lose without my meager vote. I see other Ill-inois RINO’s running on “common-sense gun laws” and pro-baby murder too. Trump/PENCE 2016…

  3. Any Republican who feels the need to dredge up old ties to progressive leftist Presidents in his campaign ads deserves to go down in flames.

    • Toomey deserves to go down in flames, but it should have happened in the primary.

      But I agree with you. “My enemies love me” is a poor campaign slogan.

    • Y’all may hate Toomey, but he may the the only thing standing between the Democrats controlling the Senate for the next two years under a President Hillary.

      For those who like to think that Hillary will “pack” the Supreme Court for the next 40 years, Toomey may be the only thing that could stop her. Does he deserve to go down in flames? Absolutely. But if you do it (and the odds look pretty high that he will lose) that’s one more vote towards a Democrat majority in the Senate. Is it worth it?

        • Prior to buying in to UBC’s, Toomey was NRA A-rated. His opponent, on the other hand, is apparently a frothing-at-the-mouth gungrabber.

          At some point you gotta look at the big picture. Punishing Toomey might feel right, but Hillary is going to win according to every poll, pundit, prediction market, betting market, early voting statistic, and Predata’s metadata indicators — so the fight now is for the Senate. Republicans need 51 seats. They *may* just barely get them if everything goes perfectly, but having Toomey’s seat would be an extremely welcome addition.

        • Because… it’s the only card you have left in the deck?

          100% of the Republicans in the Senate voted against Obamacare. 100% of the Republicans in the House voted against Obamacare. There are times when the party votes in unison. And for those times, it’s vital to have as many R’s in office as possible when facing a D president like Hillary.

          Or do you think the nation would be better served with Katie McGinty in office and the Democrats controlling the Senate?

        • Question: If Mark Kirk were in office in 2010, would he have voted for the ACA, against, or abstained like Jim Bunning of Kentucky?

    • Another liberal, Pennsylvania GOP Senator going down in flames? Heavens to Betsy. What a dreadful idea.

      • Toomey’s record is one of the more conservative in the Senate.

        And yes, I do find the idea of a Democratic-controlled Senate a dreadful idea. Especially with an almost-certain President Clinton.

  4. Well isn’t he supposed to vote how his constituency would have him vote? The whole representative democracy thing.

    • In a democratic republic the people elect someone to represent their interests and use their best judgment in legislating. Even when elected the person uses judgment, not mandate, since they should remain aware that most likely a significant percentage of their electorate do not necessarily agree with the majority view. If this was a pure democracy then a representative or Senator would be bound to simply rubber stamp the opinions of 50% plus one of his constituents and would never be allowed to use his/her supposed wisdom and knowledge to make decisions. If that were the case you could elect anybody at all and just keep tabs on how they voted. Their stump speeches would have no relevance to the election at all.

    • Not necessarily, though that is one school of thought. Some believe that elected representatives should defer to the will of the people, basically take a poll and vote for whatever’s popular. The politician is just a mouthpiece for his constituents.

      A competing school of thought is that the people elect an individual ti represent them who shares their values, but fundamentally is elected to exercise his own best judgment. After all, he presumably has the time, talent, and resources to assess the issues of the day intelligently and decide on them prudently.

      As with most things, the answer is usually somewhere in between, but I’d bet it’s closer to the latter thinking.

    • He “showed the man” with his rampant use of illegal drugs.
      He WILL NOT allow Valerie Jarrett to clump the toilet paper.
      He REFUSES to take calls from George Soros before 10am. Unless George calls.
      Will NOT face mecca if anyone else is in the room.
      When on the down low will NOT call “her” “Michelle”

      Spine of linguine.

  6. The only real cowards are the gun lobby in general.

    UBC would not have taken anyone’s guns, UBCs clause in the bill would have strengthen criminal use of guns and provide mental health care.

    But somehow saving lives is considered “fascist”.

    And as gun ownership increases, Mass shootings in the US are continuing to happen…But obviously we need more guns. Never-mind the fact a good chunk of these shooters would enabled by groups such as NRA to commit their vile deeds while shaming the victims into not arming themselves.

    Europe, Canada, Australia, And Japan (Which I’m heading to in 2 days) doesn’t see these types of attacks on a daily basis.

    I don’t see these countries turning into despotic hellholes like you people continue to erroneously claim is happening because I’ve been there.

    You people are nothing but con artists and liars.

    I never said ban guns, but I want laws that aren’t hamstrung by an ignorant “right” that shouldn’t exist and isn’t properly executed, All you “gun folks” ignore the “well regulated” part of the Amendment, and Trump wants to get rid of all gun control laws. Meanwhile, other countries have proven gun control fucking works, as the countries with the least murder are also the ones with the strongest gun control laws. I’m sick of you people trying to deny the truth. Guns may not kill people without humans, but GUNS MAKE IT PITIFULLY EASY. Guns require ZERO skill, whereas you’ll have a harder time killing someone with literally ANYTHING ELSE. We’re against every person having such ease of murder, especially given the fact that half the population is under 100 IQ and thus should not have a right to begin with due to stupidity. Gun ownership should be a PRIVILEGE of ONLY the MOST TRUSTWORTHY AND RESPECTED PEOPLE with TRAINING. NOT A RIGHT!

    You do know several Amendments have been added and removed from the Constitution, right? It’s moddable on purpose you dolt. YOU don’t understand history, or context. The founding fathers NEVER meant gun ownership[ to be like this, AND they had no knowledge as to how advanced guns would get. YOU don’t understand context OR timing. YOU don’t understand that it is a horrible “right” to have in modern day when we’re trying to make society more civil. Guns do the opposite of that, always. And the numbers don’t lie either when you compare the number of lives saved by guns to the number of innocent lives taken, the number of lives taken is about ten times the number saved. At least. And your link proved me right, it shows clearly that while the UK is ranked 44th, the United States is ranked 10th. 138 times more than United Kingdom! There goes YOUR argument. And to add to the killing of it, Japan and Australia, the strictest gun control of first world countries, AND the least murder. Whoops, you people and your propaganda get NOWHERE around me. You should move on to someone who won’t humiliate you and use your own damn link to smack the shit out of your arguments.

    • Bullshit.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

      “The Tokyo subway sarin attack, usually referred to in the Japanese media as the Subway Sarin Incident (地下鉄サリン事件 Chikatetsu Sarin Jiken?), was an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated on March 20, 1995 in Tokyo, Japan, by members of the cult movement Aum Shinrikyo.

      In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on three lines of the present-day Tokyo Metro (then part of the Tokyo subway) during the rush hour, killing 12 people…”

      And that one took me all of 30 seconds to find. You don’t deserve any more of my time.

      • I lived through the days of Aum Shinrkio in Japan. They even bought a helicopter to disperse the gas with.
        The chief of police for Tokyo was shot by another officer with a service revolver a few weeks later. Who needs gun control again?

    • “Europe, Canada, Australia, And Japan (Which I’m heading to in 2 days) doesn’t see these types of attacks on a daily basis.

      “I don’t see these countries turning into despotic hellholes like you people continue to erroneously claim is happening because I’ve been there.”

      First, stop calling Europe a country.

      Second, try living in those places, especially as a low-income laborer. I could take you on a tour of Chicago and Detroit and leave you thinking they are two of the cleanest, safest, fastest-growing cities on earth. You’re a tourist. You’re not going to where the crime is, you are avoiding it.

      There’s a subculture in Japan, people whose families have been in the country for four, five, six generations. They are shunned into ghettos (by the government, not just society) and prevented from becoming citizens, because they are ethnically Korean.

      Canada’s a non-starter, their gun control is actually pretty lax compared to some U.S. states.

      Australia was recently forced to admit that their confiscation was a failure, and that because of the black market created by restrictions on ownership, there is a proliferation of machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades among the organized criminals.

    • “Guns may not kill people without humans, but GUNS MAKE IT PITIFULLY EASY.”

      Exactly. I know you meant this statement to support your contentions, but I don’t think you quite realize how well you underscore the fundamental reason the American Revolution could take place. If you bother to read our history of the period—which I doubt someone like you would actually do—you might realize just how important the easy access to guns was to the citizen-patriots who opposed political tyranny at Concord Bridge. Equally important to the context of our argument that private access to firearms acts as a political counterweight to tyrannical, authoritarian government is the less well known battle of King’s Mountain when armed Scots-Irish Americans formed themselves into a militia, surrounded and decimated a British regiment that was threatening their isolated “over mountain” communities. Unconnected to the larger revolutionary military conflict, they organized themselves and defeated that regiment because their communities—their lives and those of their wives, children, and neighbors were directly threatened. They took their guns and went to war.

      As that British regiment found to its undoubted surprise, the private possession of firearms do, indeed, make killing people easy. That’s why, when only governments have access to firearms, it is so easy to tyrannize and politically oppress populations. Our founders quite clearly understood the political implications of private ownership of guns. This is why we have a 2nd amendment. That is a reality that is completely lost on people like you.

    • 1) Your grammar sucks, which tells me that either English is your 2nd language, or you made it to 7th grade.

      2) Your statistics have a citation, no? Didn’t think so. You really don’t have a concept of what goes on in other countries do you. Japan “hides” gun crime in the context of “suicide.” Japanese detectives often have a difficult time of clearing murders, nor do they want to acknowledge them. Often they clear and investigation as a suicide, regardless of whether there are 2 bullet holes to the back of a head.

      3)If it is so pitifully easy to kill with a gun, how come gang bangers miss all the time?

      4)The only one humiliating themselves is you. Your arguments are specious and devoid of fact. Please, don’t book a return flight, you boor us.

    • “The only real cowards are the gun lobby in general.

      UBC would not have taken anyone’s guns, UBCs clause in the bill would have strengthen criminal use of guns and provide mental health care.

      But somehow saving lives is considered “fascist”.”

      If UBC would not take anyone’s guns, doesn’t that mean the criminals would still have their guns, too? If the legislation will not accomplish anything, why have it?

      “And as gun ownership increases, Mass shootings in the US are continuing to happen…But obviously we need more guns. Never-mind the fact a good chunk of these shooters would enabled by groups such as NRA to commit their vile deeds while shaming the victims into not arming themselves.”

      I have to admit to having difficulty with this paragraph. Who’s telling would-be victims not to arm themselves?

      “Europe, Canada, Australia, And Japan (Which I’m heading to in 2 days) doesn’t see these types of attacks on a daily basis.

      I don’t see these countries turning into despotic hellholes like you people continue to erroneously claim is happening because I’ve been there.”

      I believe others have pointed out that gun control in some of these locations is not as strong as you may think, and in others has not been as effective as desired.

      Most baffling to me on lists like this is the mention of Japan. I personally feel that the relative safety one enjoys in Japan is less a result of gun laws and more a result of Japanese culture, which is far more focused on respect and people adhering to their roles in society than American culture.

      I will point out, though, that Japan excellently demonstrates that people who wish to commit suicide can enjoy high rates of success even without access to guns.

      “You people are nothing but con artists and liars.”

      Then why bother arguing as if you’re trying to convince someone? To be a con artist or a liar, one must know that what he or she is saying is false, so your rant becomes pointless. If you intended to imply that people on here don’t know what they’re talking about, better words would have been “ignorant and deluded”.

      “I never said ban guns, but I want laws that aren’t hamstrung by an ignorant “right” that shouldn’t exist and isn’t properly executed, All you “gun folks” ignore the “well regulated” part of the Amendment, and Trump wants to get rid of all gun control laws.”

      I don’t think anyone is ignoring “well regulated”, but rather has a very different view on what it means. To help clear this up, would you please give us your definition of “well regulated”?

      “Meanwhile, other countries have proven gun control fucking works, as the countries with the least murder are also the ones with the strongest gun control laws. I’m sick of you people trying to deny the truth. Guns may not kill people without humans, but GUNS MAKE IT PITIFULLY EASY. Guns require ZERO skill, whereas you’ll have a harder time killing someone with literally ANYTHING ELSE.”

      I suppose we should all be thankful, then, that the hijackers on 9/11 only had access to commercial airliners rather than guns!

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: evil people with evil intentions will commit evil deeds. I have my doubts as to whether stricter gun laws would actually restrict access of guns to criminals (seeing as how most criminals don’t buy their guns over the counter), but even if we could eliminate all guns, people who want to hurt others will find a way to do so. If we truly want to fix the issue, we need to address why people act to hurt others in the first place, not simply try to give them slightly lower odds of succeeding.

      Which brings me to your “zero skill” remark (and if you actually believe that, you need to get someone to take you out to a range!) It’s true that using a firearm allows you to project force much easier than through other means. However, this actually works against your argument! Criminals have a tendency to prey upon those they perceive as being weaker than themselves (which just makes sense; why would you attack someone you thought was going to best you?) If you have a criminal who is 250 lbs of muscle attacking an elderly, 90 lb woman, who do you think has the upper hand? Now, give both the criminal and the woman a gun. The criminal still has a bit of an advantage, but that advantage is now much smaller, and the woman has a much higher chance of prevailing.

      “We’re against every person having such ease of murder, especially given the fact that half the population is under 100 IQ and thus should not have a right to begin with due to stupidity.”

      As argued above, people who desire to harm others will do so with or without guns.

      Also, are you seriously arguing that only those who have higher than average intelligence deserve rights? How very elitist of you!

      “Gun ownership should be a PRIVILEGE of ONLY the MOST TRUSTWORTHY AND RESPECTED PEOPLE with TRAINING. NOT A RIGHT!”

      Who gets to decide which people are considered “trustworthy and respected”? In America, our justice system is (supposed to be) premised on the idea of one being presumed innocent until proven guilty. An America that instead assumes everyone is a potential criminal who must prove himself before exercising any freedoms is an America that will eventually have standards so high as to be impossible for anyone to reach (as the standards will inevitably fail time and time again, and will be readjusted upwards). This is not an America I want any part of.

      “You do know several Amendments have been added and removed from the Constitution, right? It’s moddable on purpose you dolt. YOU don’t understand history, or context.”

      And you don’t seem to understand that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were added, not to grant privileges, but to recognize rights and restrict the Federal government (not the people).

      “The founding fathers NEVER meant gun ownership[ to be like this, AND they had no knowledge as to how advanced guns would get.”

      They had even less knowledge of the Internet, and how easy it would be for pretty much anyone in the world to publish anything they want in a format that could potentially be seen by millions of readers. Does that mean we should revisit the first amendment, too (because honestly, free speech/press should really be a privilege only granted to those with proper training and responsibility, who have an IQ of over 120, right?)? Or is it possible that the concepts (that people have the right to express themselves without fear of reprisal and have the right to defend themselves against both criminals and tyrants) are applicable regardless of the preferred medium of the times?

      “YOU don’t understand context OR timing. YOU don’t understand that it is a horrible “right” to have in modern day when we’re trying to make society more civil. Guns do the opposite of that, always.”

      You’re correct; I don’t understand how it could be considered a horrible right to have. I don’t understand why allowing people the means to protect themselves (rather than relying on the Almighty State) is considered such a bad thing by anti-gun folks.

      “And the numbers don’t lie either when you compare the number of lives saved by guns to the number of innocent lives taken, the number of lives taken is about ten times the number saved. At least. And your link proved me right, it shows clearly that while the UK is ranked 44th, the United States is ranked 10th. 138 times more than United Kingdom! There goes YOUR argument. And to add to the killing of it, Japan and Australia, the strictest gun control of first world countries, AND the least murder. Whoops, you people and your propaganda get NOWHERE around me. You should move on to someone who won’t humiliate you and use your own damn link to smack the shit out of your arguments.”

      Would you kindly cite your sources? It’s difficult to judge how well or how poorly you’re interpreting statistics without being able to see the statistics in question.

      Have a good day.

  7. “Obama Calls . . . Pat Toomey A Coward”

    So the pot calls the kettle black.

    Wait, that didn’t come out right.

  8. All you need is the translation guide:

    “LIfe-long friend and ally” = “Someone useful on the issue of the moment.”

    “Courage” = “Supporting my position.”

    “Cowardice” = “Supporting some other position.”

Comments are closed.